Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 28 / Friday, February 10, 2012 / Proposed Rules 7011 

time, no previous part 135 experience, 

or do not have qualifications related to 

the certificate holder’s operational 

environment. The certificate holder may 

then also apply for a reduced new hire 

curriculum for pilots that have previous 

experience as a crewmember in part 135 

operations and/or the particular aircraft 

and duty position. The second 

curriculum in this example may have 

less training hours due to the 

crewmember’s extensive experience. 

Each of these curriculums would also 

have detailed prerequisites to define the 

level of experience required to enter 

into either of these new hire programs. 

There are no hour requirements which 

need to be defined on a reduced training 

program, however all the training 

elements of the certificate holder’s full 

initial training program must be 

accomplished as well as the 

qualification module. 

While the FAA generally does not 

request comment on internal Notices 

and orders, the agency has established 

a docket for public comments regarding 

this guidance for inspectors in 

recognition of the interest of current 14 

CFR part 135 certificate holders. The 

agency will consider all comments 

received by February 27, 2012. 

Comments received after that date may 

be considered if consideration will not 

delay agency action on the review. A 

copy of the proposed order is available 

for review in the assigned docket for the 

Order at http://www.regulations.gov. 

Correction 

This document is correcting an 

incorrect comment due date of January 

26, 2012 and replacing it with the 

correct comment due date of February 

27, 2012. 

Issued in Washington, DC, on February 2, 

2012. 

John S. Duncan, 

Acting Deputy Director, FAA Flight Standards 

Service. 

[FR Doc. 2012–3194 Filed 2–9–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY 

COMMISSION 

16 CFR Part 1223 

[CPSC Docket No. CPSC–2012–0011] 

RIN 3041–AC90 

Safety Standard for Infant Swings 

AGENCY: Consumer Product Safety 

Commission. 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking. 

SUMMARY: The Consumer Product Safety 

Improvement Act of 2008 (‘‘CPSIA’’) 

requires the United States Consumer 

Product Safety Commission 

(‘‘Commission,’’ ‘‘CPSC,’’ ‘‘we,’’ or ‘‘us’’) 

to promulgate consumer product safety 

standards for durable infant or toddler 

products. These standards are to be 

‘‘substantially the same as’’ applicable 

voluntary standards or more stringent 

than the voluntary standard if the 

Commission concludes that more 

stringent requirements would further 

reduce the risk of injury associated with 

the product. The Commission is 

proposing a safety standard for infant 

swings in response to the direction 

under the CPSIA. 

DATES: Submit comments by April 25, 

2012. 

ADDRESSES: Comments related to the 

Paperwork Reduction Act aspects of the 

marking, labeling, and instructional 

literature of the proposed rule should be 

directed to the Office of Information and 

Regulatory Affairs, OMB, Attn: CPSC 

Desk Officer, FAX: 202–395–6974, or 

emailed to: 

oira_submission@omb.eop.gov. 

Other comments, identified by Docket 

No. CPSC–2012–0011, may be 

submitted electronically or in writing: 

Electronic Submissions: Submit 

electronic comments to the Federal 

eRulemaking Portal at: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments. 

To ensure timely processing of 

comments, we are no longer directly 

accepting comments submitted by 

electronic mail (email), except through 

www.regulations.gov. We encourage you 

to submit electronic comments by using 

the Federal eRulemaking Portal, as 

described above. 

Written Submissions: Submit written 

submissions in the following way: Mail/ 

Hand delivery/Courier (for paper, disk, 

or CD–ROM submissions), preferably in 

five copies, to: Office of the Secretary, 

Consumer Product Safety Commission, 

Room 820, 4330 East West Highway, 

Bethesda, MD 20814; telephone (301) 

504–7923. 

Instructions: All submissions received 

must include the agency name and 

docket number for this rulemaking. All 

comments received may be posted 

without change, including any personal 

identifiers, contact information, or other 

personal information provided, to: 

http://www.regulations.gov. Do not 

submit confidential business 

information, trade secret information, or 

other sensitive or protected information 

that you do not want to be available to 

the public. If furnished at all, such 

information should be submitted in 

writing. 

Docket: For access to the docket to 

read background documents or 

comments received, go to: http:// 

www.regulations.gov, and insert the 

docket number, CPSC 2012–0011, into 

the ‘‘Search’’ box, and follow the 

prompts. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Celestine T. Kiss, Project Manager, 

Consumer Product Safety Commission, 

Directorate for Engineering Sciences, 

4330 East West Highway, Bethesda, MD 

20814; email: CKiss@cpsc.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

A. Background and Statutory Authority 

The Consumer Product Safety 

Improvement Act of 2008, (‘‘CPSIA,’’ 

Pub L. 110–314) was enacted on August 

14, 2008. Section 104(b) of the CPSIA 

requires the Commission to promulgate 

consumer product safety standards for 

durable infant and toddler products. 

These standards are to be ‘‘substantially 

the same as’’ applicable voluntary 

standards or more stringent than the 

voluntary standard if the Commission 

concludes that more stringent 

requirements would further reduce the 

risk of injury associated with the 

product. The term ‘‘durable infant or 

toddler product’’ is defined in section 

104(f)(1) of the CPSIA as a durable 

product intended for use, or that may be 

reasonably expected to be used, by 

children under the age of 5 years. Infant 

swings are one of the products 

specifically identified in section 

104(f)(2)(F) as a durable infant or 

toddler product. 

In this document, we propose a safety 

standard for infant swings. The 

proposed standard is based on the 

voluntary standard developed by ASTM 

International (formerly the American 

Society for Testing and Materials), 

ASTM F 2088–11b, ‘‘Standard 

Consumer Safety Specification for Infant 

Swings’’ (‘‘ASTM F 2088–11b’’). The 

ASTM standard is copyrighted but can 

be viewed as a read-only document, 

only during the comment period for this 

proposal, at: http://www.astm.org/ 

cpsc.htm, by permission of ASTM. 

The information discussed in this 

preamble supporting the proposed 

safety standard for infant swings can be 

found in the staff briefing package, 

which is available at http:// 

www.cpsc.gov/. 

B. The Product 

1. Definition 

ASTM F 2088–11b defines an ‘‘infant 

swing’’ as a ‘‘stationary unit with a 

frame and powered mechanism that 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

7012 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 28 / Friday, February 10, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

enables an infant to swing in a seated 

position. An infant swing is intended 

for use with infants from birth until a 

child is able to sit up unassisted.’’ 

ASTM F 2088–11b also covers ‘‘cradle 

swings,’’ which are defined as ‘‘an 

infant swing which is intended for use 

by a child lying flat.’’ Cradle swings are 

distinguishable from other types of 

swings because they enable a child to lie 

flat on their back, even when the swing 

is in motion. ASTM F 2088–11b also 

covers ‘‘travel swings,’’ which are a 

‘‘low profile, compact swing having a 

distance of 6 in. or less between the 

underside of the seat bottom and the 

support surface (floor) at any point in 

the seat’s range of motion.’’ 

2. The Market 

Based on a 2005 survey conducted by 

American Baby Group, titled, ‘‘2006 

Baby Products Tracking Study,’’ and 

Centers for Disease Control and 

Prevention birth data, we estimate that 

approximately 2.7 million infant swings 

are sold in the United States each year. 

We estimate that there are at least 10 

manufacturers or importers supplying 

infant swings to the U.S. market. Eight 

firms are domestic manufacturers, and 

two are domestic importers with a 

foreign parent company. 

The Juvenile Products Manufacturers 

Association (‘‘JPMA’’) is the major U.S. 

trade association that represents 

juvenile product manufacturers and 

importers. The JPMA provides a 

certification program that allows 

manufacturers and importers to use the 

JPMA seal if they voluntarily submit 

their products for testing to determine if 

they meet the voluntary standard. 

Currently, infant swings produced by 5 

of the 10 firms, 4 manufacturers and 1 

importer, have been certified by the 

JPMA as compliant with the ASTM 

voluntary infant swing standard. 

C. Infant Swings and the ASTM 

Voluntary Standard 

1. Introduction and Consultation 

Requirement 

Section 104(b)(1)(A) of the CPSIA 

requires us to consult representatives of 

‘‘consumer groups, juvenile product 

manufacturers, and independent child 

product engineers and experts’’ to 

‘‘examine and assess the effectiveness of 

any voluntary consumer product safety 

standards for durable infant or toddler 

products.’’ ASTM F 2088 is the primary 

infant swing standard in effect in the 

United States. Through the ASTM 

process, we consulted with 

manufacturers, retailers, trade 

organizations, laboratories, consumer 

advocacy groups, consultants, and 

members of the public. 

2. The ASTM Voluntary Standard 

ASTM F 2088 was first published in 

September 2001. It has been updated 

seven times, with the latest edition, 

ASTM F 2088–11b, published in 

November 2011. The key provisions of 

the current ASTM infant swing standard 

include: definitions; general 

requirements; performance 

requirements; specific test methods; and 

requirements for marking, labeling, and 

instructional literature. 

a. Definitions. ASTM F 2088–11b 

contains definitions for key terms found 

in the standard. 

b. General Requirements and Specific 

Test Methods. ASTM F 2088–11b 

contains general requirements that 

infant swings must meet, as well as 

mandated test methods that must be 

used to ensure that the product meets 

those requirements. It includes: 

• Restrictions on sharp edges and 

points, small parts (as well as their 

protective caps), lead paint, and wood 

parts; 

• Specifications to prevent scissoring, 

shearing, and pinching; 

• Specifications on openings 

(intended to prevent finger and toe 

entrapment), labeling (intended to 

prevent labels from being removed and 

ingested or aspirated), and coil springs; 

and 

• Requirements for toy accessory 

items, including mobiles that 

accompany infant swings. 

c. Performance Requirements and 

Specific Test Methods. ASTM F 2088– 

11b contains performance requirements 

that infant swings must meet, as well as 

mandated test methods that must be 

used to ensure that the product meets 

those requirements. The standard 

includes: 

• Structural integrity requirements, 

including dynamic and static load 

requirements, which are meant to 

ensure that the swing can withstand a 

certain amount of force; 

• Stability requirements, meant to 

ensure that the swing does not tip over; 

• Requirements to prevent 

unintentional folding of the swing; 

• Restraint system requirements; 

• A requirement to ensure that infants 

are not able to slip through the leg 

opening and strangle (because their 

bodies can slip through, but their heads 

cannot); 

• Requirements for cradle swings to 

ensure that infants will remain flat; and 

• Requirements for the battery 

compartment of swings, which require, 

for example that the compartment 

contain a means to prevent battery 

leakage. 

d. Marking, Labeling, and 

Instructional Literature. ASTM F 2088– 

11b has requirements for marking, 

labeling, and instructions that must 

accompany an infant swing, including 

warnings advising caregivers to: 

• Always use the restraint system in 

the swing; 

• Never leave an infant unattended in 

a swing; 

• Stop using the swing when an 

infant is able to climb out of it; 

• Always use the most reclined seat 

position in swings with a certain 

adjustable seat recline until the infant 

can hold their head up unassisted; and 

• Never place travel swings on an 

elevated surface. 

D. Incident Data 

1. Introduction 

There have been 2,268 incidents 

reported to us regarding infant swings 

from January 1, 2002 through May 18, 

2011. All the incidents involved 

children under the age of 3 years. Of 

those reported incidents, there were 15 

fatalities, 600 nonfatal injuries, and 

1,653 noninjury incidents. We believe 

that the incidents captured in this data 

reflect the range of hazard patterns seen 

in infant swings. 

Table 1 is a summary of the 15 

fatalities reported to us from January 1, 

2002 through May 18, 2011. We 

analyzed each fatality and determined: 

(1) The cause of the infant’s death, 

which is usually based on the 

conclusion of the medical examiner; 

and (2) whether the infant swing caused 

or contributed to the fatality. There were 

five deaths that can be categorized as 

slump-over deaths. These fatalities, as 

well as the two other fatalities that were 

caused by the infant swing, are 

explained in more detail in Section E of 

this preamble. 

Table 2 lists the hazards seen in infant 

swings. We determined the percentage 

of the incident reports attributable to 

each hazard, as well as the percentage 

of reported injuries attributable to each 

hazard. The percentages have been 

rounded up or down to represent a 

whole number. The hazards are 

explained in more detail in Section E of 

this preamble. 

Information on fatalities, injuries, and 

noninjury incident reports that are 

attributable to unreasonable product 

misuse are mentioned only in the tables 

in this section. Examples of 

unreasonable product misuse include: 

placing two children in a swing meant 

for one child, or failing to use the 

restraint system. In addition, 

information is included only in the 

tables in this section on fatalities, 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 28 / Friday, February 10, 2012 / Proposed Rules 7013 

injuries, and noninjury incident reports 

where: (1) it is unknown whether the 

infant swing contributed to the incident; 

or (2) there is insufficient information 

included in the report to determine 

what happened. 

Fatalities, injuries, and noninjury 

incidents where the swing caused or 

contributed to the incident are 

discussed fully in Section E of this 

preamble. 

2. Fatality Summary 

TABLE 1—INFANT SWINGS FATALITY

SUMMARY, JANUARY 1, 2002 

THROUGH MAY 18, 2011 

Description of fatality Number of 

fatalities 

Cause of Death (‘‘COD’’) Positional Asphyxia, Slump-Over 

Death ..................................... 4 

COD Undetermined, SlumpOver Death ............................ 1 

COD Positional Asphyxia, Attributable to Swing Restraint 

Issue ...................................... 1 

COD Undetermined, Attributable to Swing Seat Issue ... 1 

TABLE 1—INFANT SWINGS FATALITY

SUMMARY, JANUARY 1, 2002 

THROUGH MAY 18, 2011—Continued 

Description of fatality Number of 

fatalities 

COD Positional Asphyxia, Attributable to Product Misuse 2 

COD Undetermined, Attributable to Product Misuse ...... 2 

COD Undetermined, Unknown 

whether Swing Contributed to 

Fatality ................................... 4 

3. Incident Summary 

TABLE 2—INFANT SWINGS HAZARD SUMMARY, JANUARY 1, 2002 THROUGH MAY 18, 2011 

Hazard 

Percentage of 

reported 

incidents 

Percentage of reported injuries 

Restraint Issues, Both Inadequate Restraint Design and Restraint Failure.27 33, including 1 fatality and 1 fall that resulted in a hospitalization. 

Broken, Detached or Loose Swing Components (e.g., arm, 

leg, motor housing or hardware).

25 20 

Seat Issues, Both Inadequate Seat Design and Seat Failure ... 16 12, including 1 fatality. 

Inadequate Clearance Between the Seat and the Swing 

Frame.

13 22 

Electrical or Battery Issues ......................................................... 9 1 

Swing Instability .......................................................................... 4 2, including 1 fall that resulted in a hospitalization. 

Broken or Detached Toys or Mobiles ........................................ 2 4 

Miscellaneous, Including Reports of Product Misuse and Reports with Insufficient Information.4 7 

E. Assessment of Voluntary Standard 

ASTM F 2088–11b and Description of 

Proposed Changes to ASTM F 2088–11b 

1. Introduction 

Infant swing hazards are best 

analyzed in conjunction with an 

assessment of the existing provisions of 

ASTM 2088–11b. In this section, we 

describe each hazard in detail. 

Following the description of the hazard 

is a summary of the requirements 

currently found in ASTM 2088–11b, if 

any provisions exist in the standard that 

are meant to address the hazard. If the 

existing standards are not adequate to 

address the hazard, we present our 

recommended changes. In most cases, it 

is helpful to compare the existing 

language in ASTM F 2088–11b with the 

proposed language containing our 

recommended changes. When this is 

done, bold lettering indicates new 

language, and language that is struck 

through indicates language that we 

propose should be deleted. In each case, 

consistent with section 104 of the 

CPSIA, the change must be more 

stringent than the existing voluntary 

standard in order to further reduce the 

risk of injury associated with the 

hazard. 

2. Slump-Over Deaths 

a. Description of Hazard 

Of the 15 reported fatalities, 5 deaths 

have been deemed slump-over deaths. 

In 3 instances, the medical examiner or 

investigating officials specifically 

described the infant as being ‘‘slumped 

over.’’ In 2 additional cases, the 

description of the infant’s position 

suggests slump-over deaths. Slump-over 

deaths occur when very young children 

(in these cases, infants between the ages 

of 2 weeks old and 3 months old) lack 

the neck muscle tone and strength to 

keep their head up. In 4 of the 5 slumpover deaths, the official cause of death, 

as determined by the medical examiner, 

is positional asphyxia. Positional 

asphyxiation occurs when the position 

of the child’s body (such as compression 

of their neck from their head being 

slumped over) prevents the child from 

breathing. In one case, the cause of 

death was undetermined, but we have 

concluded, based on a review of the 

fatality, that it was a slump-over death. 

b. Assessment of ASTM F 2088–11b 

Section 8.3.1(4) of ASTM F 2088–11b 

requires the following warning label on 

all infant swings that have an adjustable 

seat recline with a seat back angle 

greater than 50°: ‘‘Use only in most 

reclined seat position until infant can 

hold head up unassisted.’’ Infant swings 

with a seat back angle greater than 50° 

require the infant to be able to support 

their head, while a swing with a seat 

back angle less than 50° is more reclined 

and allows the infant to lay their head 

on the seat back. 

We have determined that there is no 

engineering solution, such as a restraint, 

that would adequately address slumpover deaths. By including the warning 

statement in ASTM F 2088–11b, the 

ASTM committee recognizes the need 

for the statement in order to prevent 

slump-over deaths in infant swings. We 

agree and are not proposing any 

additional changes to the voluntary 

standard to address this issue. However, 

we are seeking comments related to 

slump-over deaths in section L of this 

preamble. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

7014 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 28 / Friday, February 10, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

3. Restraint Design and Restraint 

Failures 

a. Description of Hazard 

Issues related to restraints comprised 

27 percent of the reports we received 

from the public. Restraint issues 

accounted for 33 percent of the reported 

injuries. Most of the reported injuries 

are attributable to restraint design 

issues, while the remainder are 

attributable to restraint failure. 

Restraint design hazards arise when 

the restraint system is unable to contain 

a child in the swing seat, even when the 

restraint is assembled properly and is 

functioning according to the 

manufacturer’s intent. Common reports 

in this category include infants who are 

able to lean forward or to the side and 

fall out of the seat. Some infants are 

strong enough to push themselves back 

and up with their feet, causing them to 

fall backward out of the swing, usually 

landing headfirst. One infant fatality 

and one fall that resulted in a 

hospitalization are attributable to 

restraint design problems. 

Restraint failures include belt buckles 

or straps that break. In some reports, the 

restraint system detaches from the 

swing completely. When the restraint 

system does fail in some way, the result 

is usually a fall from the swing, which 

can result in serious injuries. 

b. Assessment of ASTM F 2088–11b 

Section 6.4 of ASTM F 2088–11b 

requires all infant swings to have a 

waist and crotch restraint system. The 

standard also requires that swing 

restraint systems be tested to ensure that 

the attachment points of the system can 

withstand a certain amount of force, 

comparable to the amount of force an 

infant might apply. Manufacturers must 

ensure that the restraint system is 

attached to the swing and will not 

become detached through normal use. 

ASTM F 2088–11b also contains a 

shoulder strap/harness requirement for 

infant swings with a seat back angle 

greater than 50°. Infants seated in 

swings with a seat back angle greater 

than 50° are much more likely to be able 

to lean forward or to the side, or be able 

to push backward. When this happens, 

the infant may fall out of the seat 

completely, or they may come into 

contact with the frame of the swing. 

Having shoulder straps on swings with 

a seat back angle exceeding 50° will aid 

in keeping the infant positioned in the 

swing seat. 

c. Description of Proposed Changes 

The shoulder strap requirement is 

intended to address many restraint 

issues. The proposed rule would change 

section 7.12, which provides the 

method for testing seat back angles in 

order to determine whether the seat 

back angle is greater than 50°. Currently, 

the method involves placing a hinged 

board in the seat swing and using an 

inclinometer to measure the seat back 

angle. The proposed rule would result 

in more accurate, repeatable testing, by 

clarifying the test method to include: (1) 

Placing the seat in the most upright use 

position (currently the language only 

requires placing the seat in ‘‘the most 

upright position’’); (2) removing all 

positioning accessories, such as pillows, 

that might interfere with the 

measurement; (3) positioning the belt 

restraint systems in order to limit 

interference with the measurement; and 

(4) mandating that the hinged board be 

made of steel because it better replicates 

the weight of a child in a seat. 

Currently, the hinged board can be 

made of wood. These changes would 

result in a more stringent standard by 

ensuring that measurements are more 

accurate and repeatable, thus, reducing 

the number of injuries associated with 

swings. 

d. Proposed Change in Standard 

Currently, ASTM F 2088–11b 

contains the following test method for 

measuring the seat back angle at section 

7.12: 

7.12 Seat Back Angle Measurement— 

Place the back of the swing in the most 

upright position. Place the hinged boards 

with the hinged edge into the junction of the 

swing back and seat (see Fig. 8). Place the 

inclinometer on the floor and zero the 

reading. Manually pivot the swing to its 

furthermost back position. While maintaining 

this position, place the inclinometer up 

against the back recline board to obtain the 

seat back angle as shown in Fig. 9. 

We are proposing that section 7.12 of 

ASTM F 2088–11b be replaced by the 

following language: 

7.12 Seat Back Angle Measurement— 

Place the back of the swing in the most 

upright use position. Remove positioning 

accessories, including pillows. Orient the 

belt restraint segments to limit interaction 

with the hinged boards. Place the hinged 

boards with the hinged edge into the junction 

of the swing back and seat (see Fig. 8). Place 

the inclinometer on the floor and zero the 

reading. Manually pivot the swing to its 

furthermost back position. While maintaining 

this position, place the inclinometer up 

against the back recline board to obtain the 

seat back angle as shown in Fig. 9. Hinged 

boards shall be made of C1020 steel using a 

4 by 4 in. (101 by 101 mm) plate hinged to 

a 4 by 9 in. (101 by 225 mm) plate. The 

thicknesses shall be adjusted so that the mass 

is equal to 17.5 lbm. 

4. Broken, Detached, or Loose 

Components 

a. Description of Hazard 

Broken, detached, and loose 

components, such as arm, leg, motor 

housing, and hardware account for the 

third highest number of injuries (20%) 

and second most number of incident 

reports (25%). When part of the frame 

fails, or when hardware (such as screws) 

fall out of the product, the swing is 

likely to collapse with the infant seated 

inside the swing. 

b. Assessment of ASTM F 2088–11b 

Currently, the ASTM standard 

requires that the durability of a swing’s 

arm, leg, motor housing, and hardware 

be tested by dropping a 25 pound 

weight onto the seat of the swing 50 

times, or cycles. This is called dynamic 

loading in the ASTM standard and is 

meant to test the structural integrity of 

the swing. If any part of the swing 

breaks, or changes in such a way that 

would cause the product not to fully 

support a child, the swing fails the test. 

c. Description of Proposed Changes 

The proposed rule would make two 

changes to the dynamic load test that is 

found in section 7.2.1 of ASTM F 2088– 

11b. One change is a significant 

modification, and the other is a test 

clarification. The modification would 

increase the number of cycles from 50 

to 500. We tested swing samples from 

different manufacturers, as well as a 

range of models and designs. The testing 

revealed that 500 cycles was the point 

at which the least robust swings started 

to show signs of fatigue that might result 

in structural failures of the swing 

components. Increasing the number of 

test cycles from 50 to 500 will lead to 

a reduction in injuries in infant swings 

that occur when the arm, leg, motor 

housing, or hardware of a swing fails. 

The proposal also would make a 

clarification to the dynamic load test. 

Currently, when setting up the swing, if 

the product has more than one height 

position, recline position, or facing 

direction, the product must be tested in 

the configuration most likely to fail. The 

proposed rule would account for tray 

positions and any other adjustable 

features. This will result in more 

repeatable and accurate testing, which 

will reduce the risk of injury in swings. 

d. Proposed Change in Standard 

Currently, ASTM F 2088–11b 

contains the following test method at 

sections 7.2.1.2 and 7.2.1.3: 

7.2.1.2 Set-up the swing in accordance 

with the manufacturer’s instructions. If the 

swing seat has more than one height position, 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 28 / Friday, February 10, 2012 / Proposed Rules 7015 

recline position, or facing direction, test the 

product in the configuration most likely to 

fail. 

7.2.1.3 Place the shot bag on the seating 

surface of the swing and allow swinging 

motion to come to rest. Secure the swing so 

that the seat cannot move during the test. The 

means of securing the seat shall not affect the 

outcome of the test. Raise the shot bag a 

distance of 1 in. above the seat of the swing. 

Drop the weight onto the seat 50 times with 

a cycle time of 4 +/¥ 1s/cycle. The drop 

height is to be adjusted to maintain the 1 in. 

drop height as is practical. 

We are proposing that sections 7.2.1.2 

and 7.2.1.3 of ASTM F 2088–11b be 

replaced by the following language: 

5. Seat Design and Seat Failures 

a. Description of Hazard 

Seat issues account for 16 percent of 

reported incidents and 12 percent of 

injuries. Seat issues can be broken down 

into two subcategories of hazards. One 

is seat design issues, and the other is 

seat failure issues. Reports included in 

the seat design subcategory include 

seats that lean, or deflect, to one side. 

If a seat deflects substantially, the infant 

could fall out of the swing or bump 

against the swing frame. Some reports 

include scenarios where infants attempt 

to reach an object outside the swing, the 

seat deflects, and the victim falls out of 

the seat. Swing seat deflection is most 

common in swings supported by a 

single swing arm, which offers less 

support. 

Seat failures include the following 

scenarios: 

• The infant swing seat detaches from 

the swing frame completely; 

• The back of the seat does not hold 

in the upright position and falls 

unexpectedly; 

• The seat itself folds inward; and 

• For swings with a fabric seat that 

fits over a frame, the fabric padding 

slips off. 

In most cases, if the seat fails, the 

infant will fall out of the seat. In one 

case, it was determined that a seat 

failure contributed to an infant’s death. 

b. Assessment of ASTM F 2088–11b 

Currently, ASTM does not require 

testing for seat deflection. Our testing 

revealed that some swing seats deflect 

significantly. After reviewing the 

incidents reported to us, we noticed that 

swings supported by a single arm, 

which might make the swing less 

structurally sound, may be more likely 

to have seats that deflect in a way that 

could be dangerous for the occupant. 

Currently, seat failure issues are 

addressed by dynamic loading 

(described in section [E][4] of this 

preamble on broken, detached, and 

loose swing components) and by static 

loading, which requires the tester to 

place a 75-pound weight (or three times 

the manufacturer’s maximum 

recommended weight, whichever is 

greater) in the center of the swing seat. 

At the conclusion of the static load test, 

if the swing seat fails in any way, for 

example by detaching from the frame or 

folding inward, the product fails the 

static load test. 

c. Description of Proposed Changes 

In regard to seat design issues, the 

proposed rule would add a new 

performance requirement and a new test 

method to the static load requirements 

that would measure seat deflection. The 

proposed new test method would 

require the tester to place a 5-pound 

weight onto the seat and measure the 

distance from the lowest point on the 

swing seating surface to the floor. 

Nominally loading the seat with 5 

pounds will account for the presence of 

cloth seats that relax significantly when 

not weighted, which could interfere 

with the measurement. The tester then 

would place a 75-pound weight (or 

three times the manufacturer’s 

maximum recommended weight, 

whichever is greater) onto the swing and 

record the same measurement. The two 

measurements are compared, and the 

change in vertical deflection cannot be 

more than 4 inches. This test will reveal 

whether the swing is likely to deflect or 

deform under severe loading conditions. 

In addition to the seat deflection test, 

the swing must still meet the current 

static load requirement (using the same 

75-pound weight) and cannot fail in any 

way that could create a hazardous 

environment for the child. 

In regard to seat failures, we believe 

that more robust dynamic load testing 

will reveal any seat failure issues that 

are likely to occur in the swing. The 

modification and testing clarification to 

the dynamic load test, as described in 

section (E)(4)(c) of this preamble, will 

enable testers to better assess any 

hazards related to the seat, such as the 

possibility that the seat will detach from 

the swing frame. 

d. Proposed Change in Standard 

In addition to the modification and 

testing clarification to the dynamic load 

test, described in section (E)(4)(c) and 

contained in section (E)(4)(d) of this 

preamble, we propose a new static load 

performance requirement and test 

method. We are proposing that the 

following section 6.1.2.1 be added to 

ASTM F 2088–11b: 

6.1.2.1 The swing seat shall not have a 

change in vertical deflection greater than 4 

in. The change in vertical deflection shall be 

calculated by subtracting the distance 

measured in 7.2.2.2 from the distance 

measured in 7.2.2.3. 

Currently, ASTM F 2088–11b 

contains the following test method at 

section 7.2.2.2: 

7.2.2.2 By any necessary means, place a 

static load of 75 lb (34.1 kg) or 3 times the 

manufacturer’s maximum recommended 


mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALSEP10FE12.003</GPH>
7016 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 28 / Friday, February 10, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

weight, whichever is greater, in the center of 

the seat distributed by a wood block. 

Gradually apply the weight within 5 s and 

maintain for 60 s. 

We are proposing that section 7.2.2.2 

be replaced by the following language 

and that the language currently found in 

7.2.2.2 of ASTM F 2088–11b be moved 

to 7.2.2.3 and changed as follows: 

7.2.2.2 Place a static load of 5 lbm (2.3 kg) 

in the center of the seat distributed by a 

wood block. Measure and record the vertical 

distance from the floor to the lowest point on 

the infant swing’s seating surface. Remove 

the load. 

7.2.2.3 By any necessary means, place a 

static load of 75 lb (34.1 kg) or 3 times the 

manufacturer’s maximum recommended 

weight, whichever is greater, in the center of 

the seat distributed by a wood block. 

Gradually apply the weight within 5 s and 

maintain for 60 s. Measure and record the 

vertical distance from the floor to the lowest 

point on the loaded infant swing’s seating 

surface. 

6. Inadequate Clearance Between the 

Swing Seat and the Swing Frame 

a. Description of Hazard 

Thirteen percent of reported incidents 

are attributable to inadequate space 

between the infant seat and the swing 

frame. This hazard is responsible for the 

second most number of injuries (22%). 

When there is inadequate clearance 

between the seat and frame, an infant’s 

head can become caught, or the infant’s 

limbs can hit the swing frame while the 

swing is in motion. 

b. Assessment of ASTM F 2088–11b 

We believe that this hazard can be 

addressed by ensuring that the infant is 

kept securely within the seat’s 

boundaries. If an infant is unable to 

maneuver outside the seat’s boundaries, 

the infant’s head is unlikely to be 

trapped in the swing frame or their 

limbs are unlikely to get into a position 

where they may hit the frame. The 

shoulder restraint requirement, 

mandated in ASTM F 2088–11b for 

swings with a seat back angle greater 

than 50°, is sufficient to address 

situations involving inadequate 

clearance between the seat and seat 

frame. 

c. Description of Proposed Changes 

In section (E)(3)(c) of this preamble, 

we describe several clarifications to the 

seat back angle test used to determine 

which swings require a shoulder 

harness. These clarifications will result 

in a more stringent standard, by 

ensuring that measurements are more 

accurate and repeatable, thus, reducing 

the number of injuries associated with 

swings. 

d. Proposed Change in Standard 

We propose adding several 

clarifications to the seat back angle test 

that is used to determine which swings 

require a shoulder harness. These 

clarifications have been discussed 

previously in section (E)(3)(c) of this 

preamble, and the proposed changes are 

contained in section (E)(3)(d) of the 

preamble. 

7. Electrical or Battery Issues 

a. Description of Hazard 

Infant swings typically rely on a/c 

power, batteries, or a combination of 

both, to operate the product. Nine 

percent of the reports we received 

related to electrical or battery issues 

associated with infant swings. Common 

reports included: The motor 

overheating, batteries leaking, or the 

detection of smoke. Issues related to 

electrical or battery problems accounted 

for 1 percent of all reported injuries. 

b. Assessment of ASTM F 2088–11b 

Currently, ASTM F 2088–11b 

contains standards that regulate battery 

compartments only. Section 6.7 of 

ASTM 2088–11b requires that the 

battery compartment be marked 

permanently to show the correct battery 

polarity, size, and voltage. Battery 

compartments are also required to have 

a means to contain the electrolyte 

material in the event that the battery 

leaks. ASTM 2088–11b also contains a 

requirement prohibiting 

nonrechargeable batteries from being 

recharged with a/c power. In addition, 

section 8.4 of ASTM 2088–11b requires 

all swings that use more than one 

battery to contain warnings. The 

warnings advise consumers not to mix 

old and new batteries, not to mix 

different kinds of batteries, and not to 

leave batteries in the swing when 

storing the product for long periods of 

time. There are no other requirements 

regarding the design and operation of 

the electrical components of swings. 

c. Description of Proposed Changes 

The proposed rule would impose 

several new requirements to address 

hazards related to the electrical 

components of swings. We are 

proposing: (1) An electrical overload 

test; (2) an accessible component 

temperature requirement; and (3) a 

requirement to ensure that swings that 

run on a/c power are safe. 

Electrical components (such as 

motors, batteries, and circuit boards) in 

a swing can overheat, and this can cause 

the components to melt, smoke, 

explode, or cause a fire. We are 

proposing a test to address this hazard; 

the proposed test is substantially similar 

to the test found in the ASTM F 963– 

08, ‘‘Standard Consumer Safety 

Specification for Toy Safety’’ (‘‘ASTM F 

963–08’’). The proposed test would 

check to ensure that a normal electrical 

load cannot overload the electrical 

circuit. It would require the swing to be 

locked in a fixed position and operated 

continuously until a peak temperature 

can be recorded. For swings that operate 

continuously, the test would be stopped 

60 minutes after the peak temperature is 

recorded. Under the proposal, a swing 

will fail the overload test if it causes 

battery leakage, explosion, smoke, or a 

fire. For swings that operate on batteries 

and a/c power, the proposal would 

require both power sources, as well as 

any type of battery that can be used, to 

be tested separately to ensure that they 

all meet the requirement. 

The proposed accessible component 

temperature requirement would state 

that, during the electrical overload test, 

no accessible component may achieve a 

temperature exceeding 160°. Accessible 

components are those that a child or 

caregiver would be able to touch. This 

test is meant to protect the public from 

burns caused by very hot electrical 

components. 

The proposed rule also would require 

swings that run on a/c power (i.e., 

swings that come with an electrical cord 

that is plugged into a wall socket) to 

comply with 16 CFR part 1505, the 

requirements for electrically operated 

toys and other electrically operated 

articles intended for children. The 

regulations at 16 CFR part 1505 contain 

established labeling, manufacturing, 

design, construction, and performance 

requirements intended to ensure that 

toys and electrical items intended for 

children are safe for their use. 

The addition of new requirements for 

electrical components, including the 

electrical overload test, the accessible 

component temperature requirement, 

and the a/c power requirement, will 

reduce the number of injuries associated 

with swings. These provisions would 

ensure that motors and batteries do not 

overheat and catch fire, that accessible 

components do not become hot enough 

to burn a child or a caregiver, and that 

swings that run on a/c power are safe, 

as measured by well-established CPSC 

regulations already in place that govern 

electrical toys and other products 

intended for children. 

d. Proposed Change in Standard 

Currently, the introductory heading of 

ASTM F 2088–11b section 6.7 is: 

6.7 Swings Containing Battery 

Compartment(s) (remote control devices are 

exempt from the requirements in 6.7): 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 28 / Friday, February 10, 2012 / Proposed Rules 7017 

We are proposing that the 

introductory heading of section 6.7 of 

ASTM F 2088–11b be replaced by the 

following: 

6.7 Electrically Powered Swings (remote 

control devices are exempt from the 

requirements in 6.7): 

In addition to complying with the 

existing sections 6.7.1, 6.7.2, and 6.7.3 

of ASTM F 2088–11b (which deal with 

batteries and battery compartments 

only), we propose adding the following: 

6.7.4 The surfaces of the batteries, switch, 

motor, or any other accessible electrical 

components shall not achieve temperatures 

exceeding 160 °F (71 °C) when tested in 

accordance with 7.13. At the conclusion of 

the test, the stalled motor condition shall not 

cause battery leakage, explosion, smoking, or 

a fire to any electrical component. This test 

shall be performed prior to conducting any 

other testing within the Performance 

Requirements section. 

6.7.5 Swings operating from an a/c power 

source, nominally a 120-V branch circuit, 

shall conform to 16 CFR 1505. 

We also propose adding the following 

test method to ASTM F 2088–11b at 

section 7.13: 

7.13 Electrical Overload Test—The test 

shall be conducted using a new swing. The 

swing shall be tested using fresh alkaline 

batteries or an a/c power source. If the swing 

can be operated using both, then both 

batteries and a/c power must be tested 

separately. If another battery chemistry is 

specifically recommended by the 

manufacturer for use in the swing, repeat the 

test using the batteries specified by the 

manufacturer. If the swing will not operate 

using alkaline batteries, then test with the 

type of battery recommended by the 

manufacturer at the specified voltage. The 

test is to be carried out in a draft-free 

location, at an ambient temperature of 68 ± 

9 °F (20 ± 5 °C). 

7.13.1 Operate the swing at the maximum 

speed setting with the swing seat locked in 

a fixed position. Do not disable any 

mechanical or electrical protective device, 

such as clutches or fuses. Operate the swing 

continuously, and record peak temperature. 

The test may be discontinued 60 min after 

the peak temperature is recorded. If the 

swing shuts off automatically or must be kept 

‘‘on’’ by hand or foot, monitor temperatures 

for 30 s, resetting the swing as many times 

as necessary to complete the 30 s of 

operation. If the swing shuts off 

automatically after an operating time of 

greater than 30 s, continue the test until the 

swing shuts off. 

8. Instability 

a. Description of Hazard 

Swing instability occurs when one leg 

of the swing lifts up or the swing tips 

over completely. Swing instability 

accounted for 4 percent of the reported 

incidents and 2 percent of the reported 

injuries involved. In some incidents, the 

swing was on an elevated surface and 

inched along until it fell off the surface. 

This scenario resulted in a 

hospitalization from the fall. 

b. Assessment of ASTM F 2088–11b 

ASTM F 2088–11b contains 

performance requirements and test 

methods meant to prevent swing 

instability. The first requirement and 

test method is the ‘‘Unintentional 

Folding’’ test, which requires a force to 

be applied to the end of the swing leg 

in the direction normally associated 

with folding. This test will ensure that 

the swing will not fold and collapse 

while in use. 

The second requirement and test 

method is the ‘‘Stability in the Direction 

of Swing Motion’’ test. This test is used 

on swings that have designs in which 

the swing moves back and forth with a 

horizontal swing motion. The test 

requires that the swing be placed on an 

inclined surface of 20°. In this position, 

the swing cannot tip over or it fails the 

test. The swing is then rotated 180° and 

again placed on the inclined surface 

where, again, it must not tip over in 

order to pass. For swings with a 

horizontal swing motion, this is the best 

test to ensure that they will not tip over. 

In addition, ASTM F 2088–11b has a 

warning label requirement to address 

situations where a consumer might put 

a swing, usually a smaller travel size 

swing, on an elevated surface. This 

action resulted in a very serious injury 

to a child when the swing fell off the 

elevated surface. Section 8.3.1(5) of 

ASTM F 2088–11b requires travel 

swings to have the following warning: 

‘‘Always place swing on floor. Never 

use on any elevated surface.’’ 

c. Description of Proposed Changes 

The proposed rule would clarify the 

test methods for both the 

‘‘Unintentional Folding’’ test and the 

‘‘Stability in the Direction of Swing 

Motion’’ test. The clarifications are 

meant to address swing designs that are 

not tested adequately using the existing 

requirements. 

The current ‘‘Unintentional Folding’’ 

test works well with swings that have an 

A-frame design. An A-frame swing has 

two legs that are shaped like the letter 

‘‘A,’’ with a bar that connects the top of 

the ‘‘A’s.’’ Two arms hang from the bar 

and support the swing. However, some 

swings on the market have an L-shaped 

design. These swings have two L-shaped 

legs that come together at the top. 

Where the two ‘‘Ls’’ join, a single arm 

hangs down to support the swing. For 

swings with an L-shaped design, the 

current test (which requires the force to 

be placed on the end of the leg in the 

direction normally associated with 

folding) will not adequately test the 

swing to ensure that it will not fold 

while in use. Our testing on L-shaped 

infant swing designs revealed that forces 

placed at the end of the L-shaped legs 

created a twisting motion. This twisting 

motion may not exercise the latch to the 

same extent as a force applied to the end 

of a leg in an A-frame infant swing. 

Additionally, for this test, we want to 

clarify the location of the applied force. 

The phrase, ‘‘end of the leg,’’ could be 

interpreted inconsistently over various 

infant swing leg designs. 

Thus, the proposed rule would 

require that the test address all swing 

designs, and it would do so by adding 

language that would require the tester to 

put the force ‘‘at the lowest point on the 

leg that results in the greatest force on 

the latch in the direction normally 

associated with folding.’’ This will 

adequately test A-frame swings and Lshaped swings. 

The proposed rule would make 

clarifications to the stability test, as 

well. The current test is appropriate for 

swings with a horizontal swing motion. 

Swings with a horizontal swing motion 

move back and forth. However, some 

swings move from side to side or have 

another type of swing motion. For these 

swings, the current test will not 

adequately predict stability issues. 

Therefore, the proposal would change 

the stability test to account for swings 

with other types of swing motions. 

Swings with a horizontal swing motion 

would continue to be tested in the same 

way (placing the swing on an inclined 

surface and then rotating it 180°). 

However, for swings with other than a 

horizontal motion, the proposed rule 

would require the tester to test the 

swing on the inclined surface in the 

most onerous swing orientations. This 

will ensure that all swings will be tested 

in the position most likely to fail. 

Currently, the stability test requires 

the tester to account for different height 

positions, recline positions, and facing 

directions in order to ensure that the 

swing is safe in any configuration. For 

both swings with a horizontal swing 

motion and swings with other types of 

swing motions, we propose taking into 

consideration the direction of motion, 

the tray position, and any other 

adjustable features to ensure that the 

swing will be tested adequately in all 

possible configurations. 

The test clarifications to the 

unintentional folding and stability tests 

will ensure that all types of swings, in 

all possible configurations, are 

adequately tested to ensure that the 

swing remains upright and functioning 

while the infant is placed in the swing. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

7018 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 28 / Friday, February 10, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

This will reduce the number of injuries 

associated with swings that fold 

unexpectedly or tip over. 

d. Proposed Change in Standard 

Currently, ASTM F 2088–11b 

contains the following test method at 

sections 7.3.2.3, 7.3.2.4 and 7.3.2.5: 

7.3.2.3 Position the product on the 

inclined surface with the axis of swinging 

motion parallel to the stop and the lower 

most frame member(s) in contact with the 

stop as shown in Fig. 5. If the product 

contains an axis of swinging motion that does 

not remain parallel to the stop during the full 

cycle of the swinging motion, the product 

shall be tested in the positions most likely to 

fail. 

7.3.2.4 If the swing seat has more than 

one height position, recline position, or 

facing direction, test the product in the 

configuration most likely to fail. 

7.3.2.5 Rotate the swing frame 180° and 

repeat the steps in 7.3.2.2–7.3.2.4. 

We are proposing that the following 

section 7.3.2.3 replace the existing 

sections 7.3.2.3, 7.3.2.4 and 7.3.2.5 of 

ASTM F 2088–11b: 

To account for products with a swing 

motion that is not horizontal, we are 

proposing that the text of ASTM F 

2088–11b section 7.3.2.4 be as follows: 

7.3.2.4 For a product with other than a 

horizontal axis of swing motion, position the 

product on the inclined surface in the most 

onerous swing orientation, such that the 

product is in contact with the stop. If the 

swing seat has more than one height position, 

recline position, facing direction, direction of 

motion, tray position, or other adjustable 

feature, test the product in the configuration 

most likely to fail. 

Currently, ASTM F 2088–11b 

contains the following test method at 

section 7.4.1: 

7.4.1 With the unit in the manufacturer’s 

recommended use position, apply a force of 

10 lbf (45 N) at the end of a leg in the 

direction normally associated with folding, 

while holding opposite leg(s) stationary. 

Gradually apply the force over 5 s, and 

maintain for an additional 10 s. Repeat this 

test on each leg. 

We are proposing to replace section 

7.4.1 of ASTM F 2088–11b as follows: 

9. Broken or Detached Toys and Mobiles 

a. Description of Hazard 

Many swings come with infant toys or 

mobiles meant to entertain infants in the 

swing. Two percent of the incident 

reports and 4 percent of the injury 

reports are attributable to broken and 

detached toys and mobiles. Some 

injuries occurred when mobiles 

completely detached from the swing 

and fell onto the child. 

b. Assessment of ASTM F 2088–11b 

Currently, ASTM F 2088–11b requires 

toy mobiles included with infant swings 

to be tested for detachment. The test 

method, contained in section 7.11 of 

ASTM F 2088–11b, requires the tester to 

pull the mobile in a vertical downward 

direction toward where the occupant 

would be. A detachment, other than that 

of a soft toy, is considered a failure. 

c. Description of Proposed Changes 

The proposed rule would clarify that 

the standard must account for mobiles 

that may fail if they are pulled in a 

direction other than straight downward 

vertically. It would require that the 

direction of force be in the most onerous 

position that is below the horizontal 

plane. In other words, a child in a swing 

will always be pulling in a downward 

direction, but under the proposal, the 

test would account for a child who pulls 

down, but slightly to the right or slightly 

to the left. To help manufacturers and 

third party conformity assessment 

bodies, we propose including a graphic 

in the standard illustrating the area 

below the horizontal plane. Our 

proposal would eliminate detachments 

that might occur from forces applied to 

the mobile in inadvertent directions, 

and the proposal will reduce the risk of 

injuries associated with this hazard. 

d. Proposed Change in Standard 

Currently, ASTM F 2088–11b 

contains the following test method at 

section 7.11.3: 

7.11.3 Gradually apply a vertical 

downward force of 10 lbf in the direction of 

the occupant to the end of the mobile furthest 

from the swing attachment point. Apply the 

force within 5 s and maintain for an 

additional 10 s. 

The proposal would revise section 

7.11.3 of ASTM F 2088–11b as follows: 


mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALSep10fe12.004</GPH> ep10fe12.005</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 28 / Friday, February 10, 2012 / Proposed Rules 7019 

We also propose adding the following 

Figure 8a, Mobile Attachment Strength, 

to ASTM F 2088–11b: 

10. Miscellaneous 

a. Description of Hazard 

Four percent of the reported incidents 

and 7 percent of all injuries are 

attributable to miscellaneous causes. Of 

the incidents that we found to be 

product related, most include small 

parts, including pieces of fabric that 

detach and can result in a choking 

hazard. Other reports involve sharp 

protrusions and surfaces that can cause 

cuts and scrapes. 

b. Assessment of ASTM F 2088–11b 

We have evaluated these incidents 

and have determined that ASTM F 

2088–11b addresses these incidents. For 

example, there are already requirements 

that prohibit small parts and sharp 

edges that can pose injury hazards to 

children. Consequently, we are not 

proposing any changes based on the 

incidents reported in this category. 

11. Summary of CPSC Recommended 

Changes to ASTM F 2088–11b 

In conclusion, the proposed rule 

would add two new requirements to 

ASTM F 2088–11b that will make the 

standard more stringent than the current 

voluntary standard and will reduce the 

risk of injury associated with infant 

swings: (1) A performance requirement 

and test method to address electrical 

overload in infant swing motors and 

batteries, as well as an accessible 

component temperature requirement 

and a requirement to ensure that swings 

that run on a/c power are safe; and (2) 

a performance requirement and test 

method to address seat deflection. We 

also propose two major modifications to 

ASTM F 2088–11b that will make the 

standard more stringent than the current 

voluntary standard and will reduce the 

risk of injury associated with infant 

swings: (1) An increase in the number 

of test cycles used in the dynamic load 

test, from 50 cycles to 500 cycles and (2) 

a modification to the mobile test to 

account for mobiles that can be pulled 

in downward directions other than 

straight down vertically. Finally, the 

proposal would clarify the test methods 

for the dynamic load test, the stability 

test, the unintentional folding test, and 

the seat back angle measurement 

method. Each of these clarifications 

would make the resulting standard more 

stringent than the current voluntary 

standard and will result in a reduction 

of injuries because they will result in 

more accurate and repeatable testing of 

infant swings, which will lead to safer 

products. 

F. Effective Date 

The Administrative Procedure Act 

(‘‘APA’’) generally requires that the 

effective date of the rule be at least 30 

days after publication of the final rule. 

5 U.S.C. 553(d). To allow time for infant 

swings to come into compliance, we 

intend for the standard to become 

effective 6 months after the publication 

of the final rule in the Federal Register. 

We invite comment on how long it will 

take infant swing manufacturers to come 

into compliance. 


mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALSep10fe12.009</GPH> ep10fe12.007</GPH>
7020 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 28 / Friday, February 10, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

G. Regulatory Flexibility Act 

1. Introduction 

The Regulatory Flexibility Act 

(‘‘RFA’’), 5 U.S.C. §§ 601–612, requires 

agencies to consider the impact of 

proposed rules on small entities, 

including small businesses. Section 603 

of the RFA requires us to prepare an 

initial regulatory flexibility analysis and 

make it available to the public for 

comment when the notice of proposed 

rulemaking is published. The initial 

regulatory flexibility analysis must 

describe the impact of the proposed rule 

on small entities. In addition, it must 

identify any significant alternatives to 

the proposed rule that would 

accomplish the stated objectives of the 

rule and, at the same time, reduce the 

economic impact on small businesses. 

Specifically, the initial regulatory 

flexibility analysis must contain: 

• A description of and, where 

feasible, an estimate of the number of 

small entities to which the proposed 

rule will apply; 

• A description of the reasons why 

action by the agency is being 

considered; 

• A succinct statement of the 

objectives of, and legal basis for, the 

proposed rule; 

• A description of the projected 

reporting, recordkeeping, and other 

compliance requirements of the 

proposed rule, including an estimate of 

the classes of small entities subject to 

the requirements, and the type of 

professional skills necessary for the 

preparation of reports or records; and 

• Identification, to the extent 

possible, of all relevant Federal rules 

which may duplicate, overlap, or 

conflict with the proposed rule. 

2. The Market 

Based on a 2005 survey conducted by 

American Baby Group titled, ‘‘2006 

Baby Products Tracking Study,’’ along 

with Centers for Disease Control and 

Prevention birth data, we estimate that 

approximately 2.7 million infant swings 

are sold in the United States each year. 

We estimate that there are at least 10 

manufacturers or importers supplying 

infant swings to the U.S. market. Eight 

of these firms are domestic 

manufacturers, and two of these firms 

are domestic importers with foreign 

parent companies. 

Under the U.S. Small Business 

Administration (‘‘SBA’’) guidelines, a 

manufacturer of infant swings is small 

if it has 500 or fewer employees, and an 

importer is considered small if it has 

100 or fewer employees. Based on these 

guidelines, six domestic manufacturers 

and both domestic importers known to 

supply infant swings to the U.S. market 

are small businesses. The remaining 

entities are two large domestic 

manufacturers. There may be additional 

unknown small manufacturers and 

importers operating in the U.S. market. 

The JPMA runs a voluntary 

certification program for juvenile 

products. Certification under the JPMA 

program is based on the ASTM 

voluntary infant swing standard. Two of 

the six small manufacturers produce 

swings that are certified as compliant 

with the ASTM voluntary infant swing 

standard by the JPMA. Of the importers, 

one imports swings that have been 

certified as compliant with the ASTM 

voluntary infant swing standard. 

3. Impact on Small Business 

a. Costs of Complying With the 

Voluntary Standard 

Section 104(b) of the CPSIA requires 

us to promulgate consumer product 

safety standards for durable infant and 

toddler products. These standards are to 

be ‘‘substantially the same as’’ 

applicable voluntary standards or more 

stringent than the voluntary standard if 

we conclude that more stringent 

requirements would further reduce the 

risk of injury associated with the 

product. The extent to which each firm 

will be impacted by the proposed rule 

depends on whether the firm’s infant 

swings currently comply with the 

ASTM voluntary standard. Small firms 

whose infant swings already comply 

with the voluntary standard will only 

potentially incur costs related to our 

recommended additions and 

modifications to the standard. 

b. Small Manufacturers 

Two of the small manufacturers have 

infant swings known to comply with the 

voluntary standard. The costs, if any, to 

these firms associated with our 

recommended changes are not expected 

to be significant. Any impact may be 

mitigated if the costs are treated as new 

product expenses and amortized over 

time. 

The costs to the four manufacturing 

firms whose infant swings may not be 

compliant with the voluntary standard 

could be more significant. Meeting the 

existing voluntary standard could 

require manufacturers to redesign their 

product. However, we believe that the 

actual costs to most manufacturers will 

not be high, and any costs that are 

incurred can be mitigated if they are 

treated as new product expenses and 

amortized over time. This scenario also 

assumes that the four firms whose 

swings are not JPMA certified do not 

meet the ASTM voluntary standard. In 

fact, we have identified many instances 

in which a juvenile product not certified 

by the JPMA does comply with the 

ASTM voluntary standard. To the extent 

that the firms may already supply infant 

swings that meet the ASTM voluntary 

standard, the costs incurred will be less. 

c. Small Importers 

Importers of infant swings would 

need to find an alternate source if their 

existing supplier does not come into 

compliance with the proposed standard. 

Purchasing compliant, higher quality 

infant swings could increase the cost of 

the product. Importers could pass on 

some of these increased costs to 

consumers. Some importers could 

respond to the rule by discontinuing the 

import of infant swings. The impact of 

this decision could be mitigated by 

replacing swings with a different infant 

or toddler product. Deciding to import 

an alternative infant or toddler product 

would be a reasonable and realistic way 

to offset any lost revenue. 

Both of the known importers are 

subsidiaries importing their infant 

swings from a foreign parent company. 

Finding an alternative supply source 

would not be an option for these firms. 

However, they could respond to the rule 

by discontinuing the import of their 

noncompliant infant swings and 

replacing them with another infant or 

toddler product. This is more likely to 

be necessary for the importer supplying 

infant swings that are not believed to be 

compliant with the voluntary standard. 

d. Costs of Complying With Our 

Recommended Changes 

We are proposing two new 

requirements, two major modifications, 

and several testing clarifications to 

ASTM F 2088–11b. 

The proposed electrical and battery 

requirements would result in low or no 

costs to small firms. A firm’s inability to 

comply with these requirements would 

most likely be the result of a defect that 

would be remedied by replacing the 

battery or other power source. 

According to one source in the industry, 

it is already fairly common for 

manufacturers to test their products to 

ensure that the electrical system will not 

overheat. 

The proposed seat deflection test, 

depending on the swing design, would 

result in some costs to smaller firms. 

Swings likely to be affected are those in 

which a single swing arm supports the 

seat. In most cases, manufacturers of 

these types of swings would be able to 

produce infant swings that comply with 

the proposed requirement by using 

stronger materials. It is possible that a 

few firms may opt to redesign their 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 28 / Friday, February 10, 2012 / Proposed Rules 7021 

product, which would be more costly. 

In either case, only a small number of 

firms will be affected. 

The proposed modifications to the 

dynamic load test, which would 

increase the number of cycles in the test 

from 50 to 500, may have an impact on 

some swing manufacturers but have 

little or no impact on others. If there are 

modifications associated with this 

change, they might be substantial. Some 

products might only need stronger 

screws or a better way of attaching 

swing components. Some swings might 

require a complete product redesign. 

Therefore, it is unclear how many 

products will be affected by modifying 

this requirement and what the costs will 

be. 

We expect that the proposed 

modification to the infant mobile 

requirement would have a significant 

impact on swing manufacturers whose 

products require modifications to 

comply. Not only would these products 

need to be redesigned, the hard tool 

used to manufacture the swing 

component would need to be changed. 

The hard tool is the mold of the desired 

infant swing component shape. During 

the manufacturing process, the 

component is made by injecting plastic 

or other material into the tool. Hard 

tools are usually made by an outside 

firm, which means that production of 

the swing would cease until the tool is 

designed and created. While this will be 

costly for some firms, it is expected to 

impact only a small number of firms 

whose mobiles would not meet the 

proposed change. 

The testing clarifications would not 

require product modifications. These 

changes are meant to ensure that testing 

is consistent and repeatable. There 

would be no economic impact on small 

firms as a result of these changes. 

4. Alternatives 

Under the CPSIA, we must 

promulgate consumer product safety 

standards that are substantially the same 

as the voluntary standards for durable 

infant or toddler products, or 

promulgate consumer product safety 

standards that are more stringent than 

the voluntary standards, if the 

Commission determines that more 

stringent standards would further 

reduce the risk of injury associated with 

such products. Adopting the voluntary 

standard without change is one 

alternative that could reduce the 

potential cost to small businesses. 

However, small firms that are not 

compliant with the voluntary rule still 

would incur costs to become compliant 

with the existing ASTM standard for 

infant swings, regardless of whether we 

recommend changes. 

A second alternative is to set an 

effective date longer than 6 months to 

allow firms additional time to comply 

with the mandatory standard. More time 

would give manufacturers an 

opportunity to make any necessary 

changes to their product and provide 

importers time to find an alternative 

supply source or replace noncompliant 

swings with an alternative infant or 

toddler product, if necessary. 

5. Conclusion of Initial Regulatory 

Flexibility Analysis 

It is possible that the proposed 

standard, if finalized, could have a 

significant impact on some small 

businesses whose infant swings are not 

ASTM compliant. Further, it is possible 

that some swings that are already ASTM 

compliant might incur costs associated 

with our recommended changes. For 

manufacturers, the extent of these costs 

could entail expensive product 

redesign. Importers may need to find 

alternative sources of infant swings or 

replace swings with another infant or 

toddler product. 

We invite comments describing: 

• The possible impact of this rule on 

small manufacturers and importers; and 

• Significant alternatives to the 

proposed rule that would accomplish 

the stated objectives of the proposed 

rule, and at the same time, reduce the 

economic impact on small businesses. 

H. Environmental Considerations 

The Commission’s regulations address 

whether we are required to prepare an 

environmental assessment or an 

environmental impact statement. If our 

rule has ‘‘little or no potential for 

affecting the human environment’’ it 

will be categorically exempted from this 

requirement. 16 CFR 1021.5(c)(1). The 

proposed rule falls within the 

categorical exemption. 

I. Paperwork Reduction Act 

1. Introduction 

This proposed rule contains 

information collection requirements that 

are subject to public comment and 

review by the Office of Management and 

Budget (‘‘OMB’’) under the Paperwork 

Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501– 

3521). In this document, pursuant to 44 

U.S.C. 3507(a)(1)(D), we set forth: 

• A title for the collection of 

information; 

• A summary of the collection of 

information; 

• A brief description of the need for 

the information and the proposed use of 

the information; 

• A description of the likely 

respondents and proposed frequency of 

responses to the collection of 

information; 

• An estimate of the burden that shall 

result from the collection of 

information; and 

• Notice that comments may be 

submitted to the OMB. 

2. Title and Description of the 

Collection of Information 

The title for this collection of 

information is ‘‘Safety Standard for 

Infant Swings.’’ The proposed rule 

would require each infant swing to 

comply with ASTM F 2088–11b, 

Standard Consumer Safety Specification 

for Infant Swings. Sections 8.1 and 

section 9.1 of ASTM F 2088–11b 

contain requirements for marking, 

labeling, and instructional literature. 

These requirements fall within the 

definition of ‘‘collection of 

information,’’ as defined in 44 U.S.C. 

3502(3). Specifically, 5 CFR 1320.3(c)(2) 

states that a collection of information 

includes information that an agency 

requires another entity, such as an 

infant swing manufacturer or importer, 

to obtain or compile for the purpose of 

disclosure to the public through 

labeling. 

Section 8.1 of ASTM F 2088–11b 

requires that the following items be 

clearly and legibly marked on each 

infant swing and its retail carton: 

• The name and the place of business 

(city, state, and zip code) or telephone 

number of the manufacturer, importer 

distributor, or seller; 

• A model number, stock number, 

catalog number, item number, or other 

symbol expressed numerically, or 

otherwise, such that only articles of 

identical construction, composition, and 

dimensions bear identical markings; and 

• A code mark or other means that 

identifies the date (month and year, as 

a minimum) of manufacture. 

This information is necessary in order 

to assist us and consumers when there 

is a need to identify: (1) The firm 

supplying the infant swing, (2) the 

model number (or other identifying 

mark) of the infant swing, and (3) the 

date the swing was manufactured. 

Section 9.1 of ASTM F 2088–11b 

requires all firms supplying swings to 

provide written, easy to read, 

instructions regarding assembly, 

maintenance, cleaning, and use. 

Instructional literature ensures that 

consumers are aware of how to use the 

product as the manufacturer intended. 

The information required in sections 

8.1 and 9.1 of ASTM F 2088–11b is 

intended to address safety issues that 

might arise with the product. The 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

7022 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 28 / Friday, February 10, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

instructional literature in section 9.1 of 

ASTM F 2088–11b is meant to prevent 

safety problems by providing assembly 

and maintenance information to 

consumers. The information required in 

section 8.1 of ASTM F 2088–11b is 

intended to help us and the consumer 

identify the firm and the product, 

should a safety issue arise. 

3. Description of the Respondents and 

the Estimated Burden 

The respondents affected by this 

collection of information are 

manufacturers or importers of infant 

swings. We estimate the burden of this 

collection of information as follows: 

TABLE 3—ESTIMATED ANNUAL REPORTING BURDEN

16 CFR Section Number of 

respondents 

Frequency of 

responses 

Total annual 

responses 

Hours per 

response 

Total burden 

hours 

1223.2(a) .............................................................................. 5 5 25 1 25 

There are 10 known entities 

supplying infant swings to the U.S. 

market. Five entities produce labels that 

comply with the standard. We assume 

these five entities produce labels that 

comply with the standard because they 

claim that their infant swings comply 

with ASTM F 2088–11b, and the swings 

are certified by the JPMA as conforming 

to ASTM F 2088–11b. Therefore, we 

assume that their products meet the 

marking and labeling requirements of 

ASTM F 2088–11b. For these entities, 

there would be no additional burden. 

Under the OMB’s regulations at 5 CFR 

1320.3(b)(2), the time, effort, and 

financial resources necessary to comply 

with a collection of information that 

would be incurred by persons in the 

‘‘normal course of their activities’’ are 

excluded from a burden estimate, where 

an agency demonstrates that the 

disclosure activities required to comply 

are ‘‘usual and customary.’’ Therefore, 

because these five entities already 

produce labels that comply with the 

standard, we estimate tentatively, that 

with respect to these five entities, there 

are no burden hours associated with 

section 8.1 of ASTM F 2088–11b 

because any burden associated with 

supplying these labels would be ‘‘usual 

and customary’’ and not within the 

definition of ‘‘burden’’ under the OMB’s 

regulations. 

We assume that the remaining five 

entities use labels on their products and 

their packaging but may need to modify 

their existing labels. Based on our 

experience with other rules under 

section 104 of the CPSIA, we estimate 

that the time required to make these 

modifications is about 1 hour per 

model. Each entity supplies an average 

of five different models of infant swings; 

therefore, the estimated burden hours 

associated with labels is 1 hour per 

model × 5 entities × 5 models per entity 

= 25 hours. 

We estimate that the hourly 

compensation for the time required to 

create and update labels is $28.36. We 

base the hourly compensation figure on 

data available from the U.S. Bureau of 

Labor Statistics. This information can be 

found in the U.S. Bureau of Labor 

Statistics’ September 2011 data in Table 

9, ‘‘Employer Costs for Employee 

Compensation,’’ for all sales and office 

workers in goods-producing private 

industries, which can be found at: 

http://www/bls.gov/ncs. Therefore, the 

estimated annual cost to industry 

associated with the proposed labeling 

requirements is $709.00 ($28.36 per 

hour × 25 hours = $709.00). 

Section 9.1 of ASTM F 2088–11b 

requires instructions to be supplied 

with the product. Infant swings are 

products that generally require 

assembly, and products sold without 

such information would not be able to 

compete successfully with products 

supplying this information. Under the 

OMB’s regulations at 5 CFR 

1320.3(b)(2), the time, effort, and 

financial resources necessary to comply 

with a collection of information that 

would be incurred by persons in the 

‘‘normal course of their activities’’ are 

excluded from a burden estimate, where 

an agency demonstrates that the 

disclosure activities required to comply 

are ‘‘usual and customary.’’ Therefore, 

because we are unaware of infant 

swings that generally require some 

installation but lack any instructions to 

the user about such installation, we 

tentatively estimate that there are no 

burden hours associated with section 

9.1 of ASTM F 2088–11b because any 

burden associated with supplying 

instructions with infant swings would 

be ‘‘usual and customary’’ and not 

within the definition of ‘‘burden’’ under 

the OMB’s regulations. 

4. Conclusion 

Based on this analysis, the proposed 

standard for infant swings would 

impose a burden to industry of 25 hours 

at a cost of $709.00 annually. 

5. Request for Comments 

In compliance with the Paperwork 

Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 

3507(d)), we have submitted the 

information collection requirements of 

this rule to the OMB for review. Anyone 

who would like to submit comments 

regarding information collection should 

do so by March 12, 2012, to the Office 

of Information and Regulatory Affairs, 

OMB (see the ADDRESSES section at the 

beginning of this notice). 

Pursuant to 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A), 

we invite comments on: 

• Whether the collection of 

information is necessary for the proper 

performance of the CPSC’s functions, 

including whether the information will 

have practical utility; 

• The accuracy of the CPSC’s estimate 

of the burden of the proposed collection 

of information, including the validity of 

the methodology and assumptions used; 

• Ways to enhance the quality, utility, 

and clarity of the information to be 

collected; 

• Ways to reduce the burden of the 

collection of information on 

respondents, including the use of 

automated collection techniques, when 

appropriate, and other forms of 

information technology; and 

• The estimated burden hours 

associated with label modification, 

including any alternative estimates. 

J. Preemption 

Section 26(a) of the CPSA, 15 U.S.C. 

2075(a), provides that where a consumer 

product safety standard is in effect and 

applies to a product, no state or political 

subdivision of a state may either 

establish or continue in effect a 

requirement dealing with the same risk 

of injury unless the state requirement is 

identical to the federal standard. Section 

26(c) of the CPSA also provides that 

states or political subdivisions of states 

may apply to the Commission for an 

exemption from this preemption under 

certain circumstances. Section 104(b) of 

the CPSIA refers to the rules to be 

issued under that section as ‘‘consumer 

product safety rules,’’ thus implying 

that the preemptive effect of section 

26(a) of the CPSA would apply. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 28 / Friday, February 10, 2012 / Proposed Rules 7023 

Therefore, a rule issued under section 

104 of the CPSIA will invoke the 

preemptive effect of section 26(a) of the 

CPSA when the rule becomes effective. 

K. Testing and Certification 

Once there is a safety standard in 

effect for infant swings, it will be 

unlawful for anyone to manufacture, 

distribute, or import an infant swing 

into the United States that is not in 

conformity with this standard. 15 U.S.C. 

2068(1). 

In addition, section 14(a)(2) of the 

CPSA, 15 U.S.C. 2063(a)(2), imposes the 

requirement that products subject to a 

children’s product safety rule must be 

tested by a third party conformity 

assessment body accredited by the 

Commission to test the product. As 

discussed in section A of this preamble, 

section 104(b)(1)(B) of the CPSIA refers 

to standards issued under this section as 

‘‘consumer product safety standards.’’ 

Under section 14(f)(1) of the CPSA, 15 

U.S.C. 2063(f)(1), the term ‘‘children’s 

product safety rule’’ includes all 

standards enforced by the Commission. 

Thus, the infant swing standard will be 

a children’s product safety rule, subject 

to third party testing and certification. 

Before the requirement for third party 

testing and certification for infant 

swings can go into effect, we must issue 

a notice of requirements to explain how 

laboratories can become accredited as 

third party conformity assessment 

bodies to test infant swings to the new 

safety standard. We plan to issue the 

notice of requirements in the future. 

L. Request for Comments 

This proposed rule begins a 

rulemaking proceeding under section 

104(b) of the CPSIA to issue a consumer 

product safety standard for infant 

swings. We invite all interested persons 

to submit comments on any aspect of 

the proposed rule. In particular, we seek 

comments on the following: 

• We discuss slump-over deaths in 

section (E)(2) of this preamble. We 

invite comments related to whether it 

would reduce the risk of slump-over 

deaths if we revise the standard to state 

that infants who cannot hold their head 

up should not be placed in any infant 

swing, or in the alternative, whether 

infants who cannot hold their head up 

should only be placed in cradle swings, 

which allow an infant to lie flat. We 

invite comments related to whether the 

warning statement contained in section 

8.3.1(4) of ASTM F 2088–11b (which 

requires the following warning label on 

all infant swings having an adjustable 

seat recline with a seat back angle 

greater than 50°: ‘‘Use only in most 

reclined seat position until infant can 

hold head up unassisted’’) is sufficient 

to warn caregivers of the risk of slumpover deaths. We also invite comments 

related to whether 50° is the appropriate 

seat back angle to use in the warning, 

and what warnings should be on swings 

that do not have an adjustable seat back; 

and 

• We discuss seat deflection hazards 

in section (E)(5) of this preamble. If a 

swing seat deflects, or leans, 

substantially, an infant could fall out of 

the swing or bump against the frame. 

We invite comments on whether the 

proposed performance requirement and 

test method adequately will predict 

whether a swing seat is likely to deflect. 

• We discuss electrical and battery 

issues in section (E)(7) of this preamble. 

Some swings operate using batteries but 

can be powered alternatively with an 

a/c adaptor. Our proposed test would 

require that each of the power sources 

meet the requirements. Additionally, if 

alternative batteries are specified by the 

manufacturer as usable to power the 

swing, they would also be required to be 

tested. The proposed test is to be 

conducted using new swings. This may 

require more than one swing to be tested 

in order to independently test each type 

of battery and/or a/c power adaptor that 

could be used with the swing. We invite 

comments describing whether there is 

an alternate test method that would 

accomplish the stated objectives of the 

test and, at the same time, reduce the 

cost on manufacturers. 

• Infant swings are regulated by a 

children’s product safety rule and are 

subject to testing that must be 

performed according to a notice of 

requirements. The Commission seeks 

comment on methods to ensure that, 

when the existing safety rule for infant 

swings and its notice of requirements 

must be amended, the effective dates of 

the notice of requirements and the 

amended infant swings safety rule are 

aligned such that no infant swings are 

subject to a notice of requirements that 

is inconsistent with the infant swings 

safety rule in effect. 

Comments should be submitted in 

accordance with the instructions in the 

ADDRESSES section at the beginning of 

this notice. 

List of Subjects in 16 CFR Part 1223 

Consumer Protection, Imports, 

Incorporation by Reference, Infants and 

Children, Labeling, Law Enforcement, 

Safety and Toys. 

Therefore, the Commission proposes 

to amend Title 16 of the Code of Federal 

Regulations by adding part 1223 to read 

as follows: 

PART 1223—SAFETY STANDARD FOR 

INFANT SWINGS 

Sec. 

1223.1 Scope. 

1223.2 Requirements for infant swings. 

Authority: The Consumer Product Safety 

Improvement Act of 2008, Pub. L. 110–314, 

§ 104, 122 Stat. 3016 (August 14, 2008). 

§ 1223.1 Scope. 

This part establishes a consumer 

product safety standard for infant 

swings. 

§ 1223.2 Requirements for Infant Swings. 

(a) Except as provided in paragraph 

(b) of this section, each infant swing 

must comply with all applicable 

provisions of ASTM F 2088–11b, 

Standard Consumer Safety Specification 

for Infant Swings, approved on October 

1, 2011. The Director of the Federal 

Register approves this incorporation by 

reference in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 

552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. You may 

obtain a copy from ASTM International, 

100 Bar Harbor Drive, P.O. Box 0700, 

West Conshohocken, PA 19428; http:// 

www.astm.org. You may inspect a copy 

at the Office of the Secretary, U.S. 

Consumer Product Safety Commission, 

Room 820, 4330 East West Highway, 

Bethesda, MD 20814, telephone 301– 

504–7923, or at the National Archives 

and Records Administration (NARA). 

For information on the availability of 

this material at NARA, call 202–741– 

6030, or go to: http://www.archives.gov/ 

federal_register/code_of_federal 

regulations/ibr_locations.html. 

(b) Comply with the ASTM F 2088– 

11b standard with the following 

additions or exclusions: 

(1) In addition to complying with 

section 6.1.2 of ASTM 2088–11b, 

comply with the following: 

(i) 6.1.2.1 The swing seat shall not 

have a change in vertical deflection 

greater than 4 in. The change in vertical 

deflection shall be calculated by 

subtracting the distance measured in 

7.2.2.2 from the distance measured in 

7.2.2.3. 

(2) Instead of complying with the 

introductory heading in 6.7 of ASTM 

2088–11b, comply with the following: 

(i) 6.7 Electrically Powered Swings 

(remote control devices are exempt from 

the requirements in 6.7): 

(3) In addition to complying with 

6.7.3 of ASTM 2088–11b, comply with 

the following: 

(i) 6.7.4 The surfaces of the batteries, 

switch, motor, or any other accessible 

electrical components shall not achieve 

temperatures exceeding 160 °F (71° C) 

when tested in accordance with 7.13. At 

the conclusion of the test, the stalled 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

7024 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 28 / Friday, February 10, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

motor condition shall not cause battery 

leakage, explosion, smoking, or a fire to 

any electrical component. This test shall 

be performed prior to conducting any 

other testing within the Performance 

Requirement section. 

(ii) 6.7.5 Swings operating from an 

a/c power source, nominally a 120–V 

branch circuit, shall conform to 16 CFR 

1505. 

(4) Instead of complying with section 

7.2.1.2 of ASTM 2088–11b, comply with 

the following: 

(i) 7.2.1.2 Set-up the swing in 

accordance with the manufacturer’s 

instructions. If the swing seat has more 

than one height position, recline 

position, facing direction, tray position, 

or other adjustable feature, test the 

product in the configuration most likely 

to fail. 

(5) Instead of complying with 7.2.1.3 

of ASTM 2088–11b, comply with the 

following: 

(i) 7.2.1.3 Place the shot bag on the 

seating surface of the swing and allow 

swinging motion to come to rest. Secure 

the swing so that the seat cannot move 

during the test. The means of securing 

the seat shall not affect the outcome of 

the test. Raise the shot bag a distance of 

1 in. above the seat of the swing. Drop 

the weight onto the seat 500 times, with 

a cycle time of 4 ± 1s/cycle. The drop 

height is to be adjusted to maintain the 

1 in. drop height as is practical. 

(6) Instead of complying with section 

7.2.2.2 of ASTM 2088–11b, comply with 

the following: 

(i) 7.2.2.2 Place a static load of 5 lb 

(2.3 kg) in the center of the seat 

distributed by a wood block. Measure 

and record the vertical distance from the 

floor to the lowest point on the infant 

swing’s seating surface. Remove the 

load. 

(7) In addition to complying with the 

changes to section 7.2.2.2 of ASTM 

2088–11b as described in paragraph 

(b)(6) of this section, comply with the 

following: 

(i) 7.2.2.3 By any necessary means, 

place a static load of 75 lb (34.1 kg) or 

3 times the manufacturer’s maximum 

recommended weight, whichever is 

greater, in the center of the seat 

distributed by a wood block. Gradually 

apply the weight within 5 s and 

maintain for 60 s. Measure and record 

the vertical distance from the floor to 

the lowest point on the loaded infant 

swing’s seating surface. 

(8) Instead of complying with section 

7.3.2.3 of ASTM 2088–11b, comply with 

the following: 

(i) 7.3.2.3 For a product with a 

horizontal axis of swing motion, 

position the product on the inclined 

surface with the axis of swinging motion 

parallel to the stop and the lower most 

frame member(s) in contact with the 

stop as shown in Fig. 5. If the swing seat 

has more than one height position, 

recline position, facing direction, 

direction of motion, tray position, or 

other adjustable feature, test the product 

in the configuration most likely to fail. 

Rotate the swing frame 180° and repeat 

the procedure. 

(9) Instead of complying with section 

7.3.2.4 of ASTM 2088–11b, comply with 

the following: 

(i) 7.3.2.4 For a product with other 

than a horizontal axis of swing motion, 

position the product on the inclined 

surface in the most onerous swing 

orientation such that the product is in 

contact with the stop. If the swing seat 

has more than one height position, 

recline position, facing direction, 

direction of motion, tray position, or 

other adjustable feature, test the product 

in the configuration most likely to fail. 

(10) Do not comply with 7.3.2.5 of 

ASTM 2088–11b. 

(11) Instead of complying with section 

7.4.1 of ASTM 2088–11b, comply with 

the following: 

(i) 7.4.1 With the unit in the 

manufacturer’s recommended use 

position, apply a force of 10 lbf (45 N) 

at the lowest point on the leg that 

results in the greatest force on the latch 

in the direction normally associated 

with folding, while holding the opposite 

leg(s) stationary. Gradually apply the 

force over 5 s, and maintain for an 

additional 10 s. Repeat this test on each 

leg. 

(12) Instead of complying with section 

7.11.3 of ASTM 2088–11b, comply with 

the following: 

(i) 7.11.3 Gradually apply a force of 

10 lbf to the end of the mobile or 

component furthest from the swing 

attachment point. The direction of force 

shall be in the most onerous direction 

that is at or below the horizontal plane 

passing through the point at which the 

force is applied (see Fig. 8a). Apply the 

force within 5 s, maintain for an 

additional 10 s, and release within 1 s. 

The test is complete after the release. 

(13) In addition to Figure 8 of ASTM 

2088–11b, use the following: 


mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALSEP10FE12.008</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 28 / Friday, February 10, 2012 / Proposed Rules 7025 

(14) Instead of complying with section 

7.12 of ASTM 2088–11b, comply with 

the following: 

(i) 7.12 Seat Back Angle 

Measurement—Place the back of the 

swing in the most upright use position. 

Remove positioning accessories, 

including pillows. Orient the belt 

restraint segments to limit the 

interaction with the hinged boards. 

Place the hinged boards with the hinged 

edge into the junction of the swing back 

and seat (see Fig. 8). Place the 

inclinometer on the floor, and zero the 

reading. Manually pivot the swing to its 

furthermost back position. While 

maintaining this position, place the 

inclinometer up against the back recline 

board to obtain the seat back angle as 

shown in Fig. 9. Hinged boards shall be 

made of C1020 steel using a 4 by 4 in. 

(101 by 101 mm) plate hinged to a 4 by 

9 in. (101 by 225 mm) plate. The 

thicknesses shall be adjusted so that the 

mass is equal to 17.5 lbm. 

(15) In addition to complying with the 

changes to section 7.12 of ASTM 2088– 

11b as described in paragraph (b)(14) of 

this section, comply with the following: 

(i) 7.13 Electrical Overload Test— 

The test shall be conducted using a new 

swing. The swing shall be tested using 

fresh alkaline batteries or an a/c power 

source. If the swing can be operated 

using both, then both batteries and a/c 

power must be tested separately. If 

another battery chemistry is specifically 

recommended by the manufacturer for 

use in the swing, repeat the test using 

the batteries specified by the 

manufacturer. If the swing will not 

operate using alkaline batteries, then 

test with the type of battery 

recommended by the manufacturer at 

the specified voltage. The test is to be 

carried out in a draft-free location, at an 

ambient temperature of 68 +/¥9 °F (20 

+/¥5° C). 

(ii) 7.13.1 Operate the swing at the 

maximum speed setting with the swing 

seat locked in a fixed position. Do not 

disable any mechanical or electrical 

protective device, such as clutches or 

fuses. Operate the swing continuously, 

and record peak temperature. The test 

may be discontinued 60 min. after the 

peak temperature is recorded. If the 

swing shuts off automatically or must be 

kept ‘‘on’’ by hand or foot, monitor 

temperatures for 30 s, resetting the 

swing as many times as necessary to 

complete the 30 s of operation. If the 

swing shuts off automatically after an 

operating time of greater than 30 s, 

continue the test until the swing shuts 

off. 

Dated: February 2, 2012. 

Todd A. Stevenson, 

Secretary, Consumer Product Safety 

Commission. 

[FR Doc. 2012–2820 Filed 2–9–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6355–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND 

SECURITY 

Coast Guard 

33 CFR Part 165 

[Docket No. USCG–2011–1172] 

RIN 1625–AA00 

Safety Zones; America’s Cup World 

Series, East Passage, Narragansett 

Bay, RI 

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS. 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking. 

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard proposes to 

establish two temporary safety zones in 

the navigable waters of the East Passage, 

Narragansett Bay, Rhode Island, during 

the America’s Cup World Series sailing 

vessel racing event. This safety zone is 

intended to safeguard mariners from the 

hazards associated with high-speed, 

high-performance sailing vessels 

competing in America’s Cup-class races 

on the waters of the East Passage, 

Narragansett Bay, Rhode Island. Vessels 

will be prohibited from entering into, 

transiting through, mooring, or 

anchoring within these safety zones 

during the effective period unless 

authorized by the Captain of the Port 

(COTP), Southeastern New England. 

DATES: Comments and related material 

must be received by the Coast Guard on 

or before April 10, 2012. Requests for 

public meetings must be received by the 

Coast Guard on or before March 2, 2012. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments 

identified by docket number USCG– 

2011–1172 using any one of the 

following methods: 

(1) Federal e-Rulemaking Portal: 

http://www.regulations.gov. 

(2) Fax: (202) 493–2251. 

(3) Mail: Docket Management Facility 

(M–30), U.S. Department of 

Transportation, West Building Ground 

Floor, Room W12–140, 1200 New Jersey 

Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590– 

0001. 

(4) Hand delivery: Same as mail 

address above, between 9 a.m. and 5 

p.m., Monday through Friday, except 

Federal holidays. The telephone number 

is 202–366–9329. 

To avoid duplication, please use only 

one of these four methods. See the 

‘‘Public Participation and Request for 

Comments’’ portion of the 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section 

below for instructions on submitting 

comments. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If 

you have questions on this proposed 

rule, call or email Mr. Edward G. 

LeBlanc, Waterways Management 

Division at Coast Guard Sector 

Southeastern New England, telephone 

(401) 435–2351, email 

Edward.G.LeBlanc@uscg.mil. If you 

have questions on viewing or submitting 

material to the docket, call Renee V. 

Wright, Program Manager, Docket 

Operations, telephone (202) 366–9826. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Public Participation and Request for 

Comments 

We encourage you to participate in 

this rulemaking by submitting 

comments and related materials. All 

comments received will be posted 

without change to http:// 

www.regulations.gov and will include 

any personal information you have 

provided. 

Submitting Comments 

If you submit a comment, please 

include the docket number for this 

rulemaking (USCG–2011–1172), 

indicate the specific section of this 

document to which each comment 

applies, and provide a reason for each 

suggestion or recommendation. You 

may submit your comments and 

material online (via http:// 

www.regulations.gov) or by fax, mail, or 

hand delivery, but please use only one 

of these means. If you submit a 

comment online via http:// 

www.regulations.gov, it will be 

considered received by the Coast Guard 

when you successfully transmit the 

comment. If you fax, hand deliver, or 

mail your comment, it will be 

considered as having been received by 

the Coast Guard when it is received at 

the Docket Management Facility. We 

recommend that you include your name 

and a mailing address, an email address, 

or a telephone number in the body of 

your document so that we can contact 

you if we have questions regarding your 

submission. 

To submit your comment online, go to 

http://www.regulations.gov, click on the 

‘‘submit a comment’’ box, which will 

then become highlighted in blue. In the 

‘‘Document Type’’ drop down menu 

select ‘‘Proposed Rule’’ and insert 

‘‘USCG–2011–1172’’ in the ‘‘Keyword’’ 

box. Click ‘‘Search’’ then click on the 

balloon shape in the ‘‘Actions’’ column. 

If you submit your comments by mail or 

hand delivery, submit them in an 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS